3 ms·
Yeah, underpass is a much more appropriate name. Now that you mention it, it does seem strange that the article doesn't mention turns before/after tunnels as t
by anttiharju 4y ago
Yeah, underpass is a much more appropriate name.
Now that you mention it, it does seem strange that the article doesn't mention turns before/after tunnels as those tend to lead to risk taking (going too fast into the underpass that you can't see into).
At least in Finland the underpasses used by cyclists are also used by pedestrians, so the underpasses being used as mugging spots is conceivable, although I've never heard about it happening.
- Someone 4y agoI think it’s more about perceived safety than about actual risks. A design that is safe, but makes “the people” think it is dangerous is a failed design, as fewer people would use it.
- emn13 4y agoI live near a mixed use cycle+pedestrian underpass under a railroad that has curves into and out of it. It's mildy terrifying in a way that's surely by design. I don't know how safe it actually is, but it _is_ used very heavily - because it's by far the shortest path connecting most routes on the opposite sides of the train track, which trumps virtually all other concerns in day to day traffic, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. And hey, there's no car traffic, so accidents are likely to be at least a little milder, though hitting one of those stone pillars is perhaps not much better.